ML20138E014
| ML20138E014 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1997 |
| From: | Wiggins J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Langenbach J GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138E016 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-97-127, NUDOCS 9705010334 | |
| Download: ML20138E014 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000289/1997002
Text
l*
Ic
i
April 24,1997
l
EA 97-127
Mr. James W. Langenbach
Vice President and Director, TMl
'
GPU Nuclear Corporation
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station
P. O. Box 480
Middletown, PA 17057-0191
SUBJECT:
THREE MILE ISLAND FULL-PARTICIPATION, EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
EXERCISE INSPECTION: NO. 50-289/97-02
Dear Mr. Langenbach:
This letter refers to the NRC biennial, emergency preparedness exercise inspection led by
Mr. J. Laughlin, at Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Middletown,
Pennsylvania, during the period of March 5-7,1997. The inspectors evaluated your
emergency response capabilities as demonstrated by the performance of your emergency
response organization (ERO) during the March 5,1997, Three Mile Island full-participation
exercise. The inspectors discussed the findings of this inspection with Mr. M. Ross and
others of your staff on March 7,1997. The findings were presented to you, Mr. A. Rone
l
and others at a formal exit meeting on March 17,1997, which was open for public
observation.
1
'
During this inspection, the NRC identified four exercise weaknesses: 1) the ERO failed to
recognize a General Emergency when warranted by plant conditions; 2) the ERO staff
incorrectly evaluated steam generator tube leakage: 3) the technical analysis of simulated
accident conditions provided to ERO managers by the Technical Support Center staff was
inadequate; and 4) the Emergency Operations Facility staff did not assess, and discuss
with offsite officials, the need for protectivo action recommendations for residents outside
the 10-mile emergency planning zone when dose projections appeared to indicate that
'
protective action guidelines would be exceeded. Additionally, we were unable to evaluate
your actions to correct a radiation dose assessment weakness from the April,1995 full-
participation exercise due to simulator malfunctions and controller actions which resulted in/ o
incorrect radiological data being provided to the field monitoring teams. At the formal exit
7
meeting, Mr. Rone provided an emergency planning performance briefing which outlined
the corrective actions planned by GPU Nuclear for the exercise weaknesses (Enclosure 2).
i
i
These findings represent a significant degradation in performance since the last full-
participation exercise. According to 10 CFR 50, Appendu E,Section IV.F.2.g, exercise
weaknesses are inspection findings that must be corrected by the licensee. Due to the
number and importance of these exercise weaknesses and the need for prompt corrective
action, we issued a Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) on March 12,1997, that confirmed
your commitment to: 1) initiate immediate corrective actions to address the exercise
,
9705010334 970424
l
ADOCK 05000289
isl isis
ljll
ll
a
s'in
i
=
ll
l ll
l
G
'
- b
t
t
4
F
A
e
l*
l
$
,
Mr. James W. Langenbach
2
weaknesses; 2) perform a root cause analysis of the issues associated with the poor
exercise performance; 3) conduct a remedial onsite exercise; 4) discuss your proposed
corrective actions and any assessments made in a formal exit meeting on March 17,1997
and 5) provide at that formal exit meeting, and in writing within 10 days subsequent to the
meeting, your views on the significance of the exercise weaknesses, and why you believe
that the corrective actions you had taken or will take to address the weaknesses will be
,
l
effective. We noted that your staff had provided us with a preliminary corrective action
plan prior to the March 17 exit meeting (Enclosure 3).
We received your letter dated March 24,1997, in response to item (5) of the CAL. Your
letter was consistent with the statements you made at the exit meeting relative to your
assessment of exercise performance. We found your corrective actions which you plan to
take acceptable. However, we are not ready to accept the view that performance during
the exercise was an anomaly. While we agree that the exercise results reflect a significant
change in performance, absent our review of your root cause analysis, we are not ready to
conclude that there were not some underlying training and program management issues
that caused the decline.
Weaknesses 1 and 4 above are being considered for enforcement action in accordance
l
with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions"
(Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600. Those weaknesses potentially c nstitute violations of
your Emergency Plan and its implementing procedures pursuant to 's CFR 50.54(q).
Accordingly, no Notice of Violation is presently being issued for these inspection findings
because we plan to discuss these weaknesses with you during a pre-decisional
enforcement conference. The decision to hold a pre-decisional enforcement conference
does not mean that the NRC has determined that violations have occurred or that
enforcement action will be taken. This conference is being held to obtain information to
enable the NRC to make an enforcement decision, such as a common understanding of the
facts, root causes, missed opportunities to identify the weaknesses sooner, corrective
actions, significance of the issues and the need for lasting and effective corrective action.
in addition, this is an opportunity for you to point out any errors in our inspection report
l
and for you to provide any information concerning your perspectives on the severity of the
weaknesses.
'
We will contact you at a later date to schedule the pre-decisional enforcement conference
to discuss these exercise weaknesses. At the conference, be prepared to address the
identified weaknesses, in particular, discuss the status of your proposed corrective actions,
[
root causes and your plan for ensuring the corrective actions will be effective.
1
.
j
l
1
,
. _ .-
_
_
._
.
_
__
. . _ _ _ . . _ . , . _ . _ __ _
__.
9
i
P
.
Mr. James W. Langenbach
3
in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter,
its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
<
l
Sincerely,
t
,
l
Jhmet
L som.
,
James T. Wiggins, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
Docket No. 50-289
i
Enclosures:
'
1. Inspection Report No. 50-289/97-02
2. Emergency Planning Performance Briefing
)
3. Proposed Corrective Action Plan for 3/5/97 EP Exercise
cc w/ encl:
E. L. Blake, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge (Legal Counsel for GPUN)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
J. C. Fornicola, Director, Licensing and Regulatory Affairs
M. J. Ross, Director, Operations and Maintenance
i
TMI-Alert (TMIA)
J. S. Wetmore, Manager, TMI Regulatory Affairs
l
I
i
i
$
i
!
!
-
- -
.
-
.
, .- -.
~ _ - - .
_
, ..
. - ---.
- -
.
. . . -
-.
. .
a
.
Mr. James W. Langenbach
4
Distribution w/ encl:
l
Region i Docket Room (with concurrences)
NRC Resident inspector
l
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
!
PUBLIC
T. Kenny, DRS
I
P. Eselgroth, DRP
I
D. Haverkamp, DRP
l
C. O'Daniell, DRP
l
D. Screnci, PAO
T. Essig, NRR
l
D. Barss, NRR
'
!
DRS File
l
l
Distribution w/enci (VIA E-MAIL):
)
W. Dean, OEDO
'
P. Milano, NRR, PDI-3
)
!
l
Inspection Program Branch, NRR (IPAS)
!
R. Correia, NRR
!
R. Frahm, Jr., NRR
l
l
4
l
6
!
l
l
l
l
!
l
4
'
l
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\EP&SB\\LAUGHLIN\\TMl9702.lNS
'
Ts receive e copy of this document, Indicate in the bos: "C" = Cop without ettschment/ enclosure
" * Copy with attachment / enclosure
"N" = No copy
OFFICE
Rl/DRS
g
l
Rl/DRS
/
[E
HQ/NRR
gf7 p
Rl/DRS
, l
g
p/c />
l
l
NAME
JLaughhn Q
RKeimag (/ y
TEssig h[F pg
JWiggins W
_
DATE
04/17/97 - (/
04//fl97
04M97} i y f @)
04//p?97 y
04/ /97
'
c
'
OFFICIAL RECORDFCoPY
L